Mike's topical tip No 2
The Reid
Bull"
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
Fellwalking, photos, London & the Thames path "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk"
Spain, food and walking "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" (see web for email)
Helen Sargan
DONT_USE...@fell-walker.co.uk wrote:
> If you have to drive a long way when you go on holiday, drink a "Red
> Bull"
I was wondering, while I was driving propped up by caffeine, how long it
would last and whether I would notice when it wore off (before I dropped
off). Any ideas how long 1 "Red bull"'s worth would last (and how many
times you could repeat before you get the jitters!)
H
The Reid
>I was wondering, while I was driving propped up by caffeine, how long it
>would last and whether I would notice when it wore off (before I dropped
>off). Any ideas how long 1 "Red bull"'s worth would last (and how many
>times you could repeat before you get the jitters!)
I reckon up to 6 hours, probably differs between individuals. I had
two on the drive from Skye to London (about 12 hours with a half way
break) after that your tired not drowsy so only sleep will help IMO.
(There is now a sugar free version in a pale blue can. Dont mix it
with alcohol BTW as some do as a cocktail, it can be fatal in
excess).
The rumours about it being a carcogen were just that, malicious
rumours started on the internet.
As to knowing when it kicks in/out I think sleepyness comes on quite
slowly, I think this is why falling asleep while driving has been
changed from an excuse to an aggrevating factor. If it should happen
to you, lie that you were distracted by a wasp , a sneezing fit, or
something. If I start to feel drowsy I stop and drink one <cough>
before it gets worse, I always have one in the drivers door pocket.
Before "red bull" I used to get out and run up and down, IMHO a short
doze is compleltely useless.
<OT>
While we are on driving I got a good gadget the other day, a GPS that
goes on the dash and bleeps and flashes at accident black spots and
speed cameras. (Road Angel). On the journey it "pointed out" a dodgy
blind brow near Loch Fyne and the SPECS average speed cameras at the
M1/M25 junction, which I hadnt noticed.
Flora
Any ideas how long 1 "Red bull"'s worth would last (and how many
>>times you could repeat before you get the jitters!)
>
>
> I reckon up to 6 hours, probably differs between individuals. I had
> two on the drive from Skye to London (about 12 hours with a half way
> break) after that your tired not drowsy so only sleep will help IMO.
> (There is now a sugar free version in a pale blue can. Dont mix it
> with alcohol BTW as some do as a cocktail, it can be fatal in
> excess).
Why bother with spenny cans of aspartame/sugar filled muck, when a
bottle of water and a few caffeine tabs will do the job instead, hmmmmmm?
Just my pen'north.
The Reid
>Why bother with spenny cans of aspartame/sugar filled muck, when a
>bottle of water and a few caffeine tabs will do the job instead, hmmmmmm?
Red Bull isn't caffeine. Its Tourine, fizzy water, glucose, citric
acid and vitamins with a small trace of caffeine and flavouring (I
assume) to cover up the nasty taste. Whether it can reasonably be
described as "muck" probably hinges on what the "flavouring" is made
of, which I don't know, do you?
The rest of the ingredients don't meet that criterion, all hopefully
being usefully for the stated objectives of stimulating metabolism,
aiding endurance, aiding concentration and reaction speed.
No idea how it compares with caffeine tablets, do you? If they are
cheaper and effective without side effects they may be a good
alternative.
Flora
> Following up to Flora
>
>
>>Why bother with spenny cans of aspartame/sugar filled muck, when a
>>bottle of water and a few caffeine tabs will do the job instead, hmmmmmm?
>
>
> Red Bull isn't caffeine. Its Tourine, fizzy water, glucose, citric
> acid and vitamins with a small trace of caffeine and flavouring (I
> assume) to cover up the nasty taste. Whether it can reasonably be
> described as "muck" probably hinges on what the "flavouring" is made
> of, which I don't know, do you?
> The rest of the ingredients don't meet that criterion, all hopefully
> being usefully for the stated objectives of stimulating metabolism,
> aiding endurance, aiding concentration and reaction speed.
>
> No idea how it compares with caffeine tablets, do you? If they are
> cheaper and effective without side effects they may be a good
> alternative.
You can also buy Taurine tabs at the health food store if thats the buzz
you are after. The 'muck' I refered to is the aspartame and/or sugar
thats in Red Bull. I don't care to put either in my body, but ymmv. I
don't have a can to hand to check on the caffeine content, but I thinks
its comparable to a strong cup of coffee. The duration of effect the
caffeine has on you is of course entirely dependant on the level of your
normal consumption.
Flora
The Reid
>The 'muck' I refered to is the aspartame and/or sugar
>thats in Red Bull.
ah, sugar! Yes, i'd prefer a sugar free or (genuinely, not some nasty
stuff) low sugar version as I dont need the energy/calories side of
it, might consider tablets although they are a bit more hassle.
Big G
news:mcvedvgfsmns71m7a...@4ax.com:
> Following up to Flora
>
>>Why bother with spenny cans of aspartame/sugar filled muck, when a
>>bottle of water and a few caffeine tabs will do the job instead,
hmmmmmm?
>
> Red Bull isn't caffeine. Its Tourine, fizzy water, glucose, citric
> acid and vitamins with a small trace of caffeine and flavouring (I
> assume) to cover up the nasty taste. Whether it can reasonably be
> described as "muck" probably hinges on what the "flavouring" is made
> of, which I don't know, do you?
> The rest of the ingredients don't meet that criterion, all hopefully
> being usefully for the stated objectives of stimulating metabolism,
> aiding endurance, aiding concentration and reaction speed.
>
> No idea how it compares with caffeine tablets, do you? If they are
> cheaper and effective without side effects they may be a good
> alternative.
Aw C'mon Mike, its a nasty, smelly compound of total shite! and you
probably know it. I thought, all this time, that I'd been discussing food
with someone who respected their olfactory senses too much to expose them
to such rubish! Bet you you could fly/rent-a-car for much the same cost
as driving, but if you must drive...Carry a gas stove, some water, then
fill your Bialatti with really good esspresso ground coffee and brew yer
own perfect fresh Coffee. Cheaper, and far far far f a r tastier than
anything you'll find on sale anywhere ! (well, cheaper then anywhere
else at least!).
--
Smiling
‹(•¿•)›
Big 'G' > ' Better than a smoke or a cup of tea '
Sure you can mail me: GARETHLROBERTS at TALK21 dot COM
Just please... PLEASE Dont spam me !
The Reid
>Bet you you could fly/rent-a-car for much the same cost
>as driving, but if you must drive...Carry a gas stove, some water, then
>fill your Bialatti with really good esspresso ground coffee and brew yer
>own perfect fresh Coffee. Cheaper, and far far far f a r tastier than
>anything you'll find on sale anywhere ! (well, cheaper then anywhere
>else at least!).
I dont want to drive in the delectable Highlands with some
Ford/Vauxhall rent a car. Anyway are you sure about the cost
comparison? I pay no serviving bills or capital, only fuel (lease car
so total cost about 4 fill ups £160). I also like to stop at Loch
Fynne/Crannog w.h.y. on the way and Glasgow airport is only half way.
Also I often self cater (which means loads of luggage) as well as
carrying things like ice axes that cause hassle at the check in.
As for stopping and brewing up, thats wasted time man! I dont take
the Red Bull for pleasure, its medicine, just like Talisker. Coffee
also acts as a diuretic, no time for stopping to pee when the road to
the isles with its bends and curves is under the wheels. :-) The pills
sound an idea, but as there really isnt much in the way of muck in a
Red Bull beyond sugar its more convenient.
BTW I forget to tell you i'm criminally insane when it comes to
driving. (ie I havnt bought the govt/green party line on driving, I
still enjoy it, think of me as the acceptable face of Jeremy
Clarkeson, or possibly unacceptable) :-)
sw
[-]
> BTW I forget to tell you i'm criminally insane when it comes to
> driving. (ie I havnt bought the govt/green party line on driving, I
> still enjoy it, think of me as the acceptable face of Jeremy
> Clarkeson, or possibly unacceptable) :-)
I love driving, environmentally unsound as it is. I shall seriously
regret the day I can no longer afford to drive :-( But I'd never resort
to caffeine hits! Two coffee beans leave me shaking and feeling ill. The
two of us share the driving for that trip, swapping every three hours.
That, and lots of music makes for a glorious journey... it will be my
turn to drive north from Glasgow next time and I am seriously looking
forward to it!
I don't mind stopping at motorway services -- it's a fascinating
foretaste of Limbo.
regards
sarah
--
Waist deep, neck deep
We'll be drowning before too long
We're neck deep in the Big Muddy
And the damned fools keep yelling to push on
The Reid
> it will be my
>turn to drive north from Glasgow next time and I am seriously looking
>forward to it!
I switch the music off once into the Highlands.
>I don't mind stopping at motorway services -- it's a fascinating
>foretaste of Limbo.
Which ones have limbo dancers? I think the quality of food has
nosedived again lately, having revisited one that a few years ago had
been acceptable.
Big G
There was supposed to have been a hint of Irony in my suggestion,
Although for those living in a city like London for example, it can make
considerable sense, but then I'd suggest they leave the Bialetti at home.
I love driving also, especially on country roads. When I get to twisty,
windy roads, I smile, open up the gas, feel tha balance of the car, or
'explore the envelope' as we pirruts put it. This is about the time,
SWMBO moans, turns green and begins to regret not offering to drive! As
for motorways, I hate them and their caffs almost as much as I hate
Jeremy Clarkson. No, more!, but hang on....nothing can be worse than that
clarkson asshole, other than? well maybe the junction of the m6/m5 in
Walsall?
Big G
@privacy.net:
> The Reid <DONT_USE...@fell-walker.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [-]
>
>> BTW I forget to tell you i'm criminally insane when it comes to
>> driving. (ie I havnt bought the govt/green party line on driving, I
>> still enjoy it, think of me as the acceptable face of Jeremy
>> Clarkeson, or possibly unacceptable) :-)
>
> I love driving, environmentally unsound as it is. I shall seriously
> regret the day I can no longer afford to drive :-( But I'd never resort
> to caffeine hits! Two coffee beans leave me shaking and feeling ill.
The
> two of us share the driving for that trip, swapping every three hours.
> That, and lots of music makes for a glorious journey... it will be my
> turn to drive north from Glasgow next time and I am seriously looking
> forward to it!
>
> I don't mind stopping at motorway services -- it's a fascinating
> foretaste of Limbo.
>
> regards
> sarah
>
>
Sarah,
I hope you'll do more than 'regret it' in the event you ever find
you can no longer afford to drive. I for one, would rage against it, to
the point of doing it, even if it's illegal! For if ever we do reach that
point ever came then the car has reverted back to its original rich
persons toy, the exclusive domain of 'those with the means' . Then with
no reasonable alternative, I'd have to fight it tooth and nail!
The Reid
>I love driving also, especially on country roads. When I get to twisty,
>windy roads, I smile, open up the gas, feel tha balance of the car, or
>'explore the envelope' as we pirruts put it. This is about the time,
>SWMBO moans, turns green and begins to regret not offering to drive!
I'm lucky, SWMBO doesnt like driving, trusts mine and supplies the
company car. Result!
>As for motorways, I hate them and their caffs almost as much as I hate
>Jeremy Clarkson. No, more!, but hang on....nothing can be worse than that
>clarkson asshole, other than? well maybe the junction of the m6/m5 in
>Walsall?
<Well were OT so what the hell>
Did I ever tell you that my ex dental hygenists daughter was married
to Jeremy Clarkeson? She went semi ballistic when she saw me reading
an article by him in the waiting room.
Anyway, think on this. Jeremy is anti nanny state road safety based
simplisticly on speed only.Right?
Have you heard about the proposals, now being road tested, that
control your cars throttle (and some say the brakes, but I cant
believe that) to the speed limit via satellites (already launched) due
to come in less than 10 years. Fancy overtaking on a Highland road,
fancy motorway driving with everybody doing exactly 70? And once they
have control imagine how much lower they might make the limits. Too
unpopular to happen? It could come from some unelected euro like the
"Welsh Windbag" or the "speed kills" propoganda may have won most
people over.
JC so bad now?
Big G
That's the problem....he politicises everything like the tabloids do,
'they want to do this... they will do that' and demonises politicians
before they have actually decided to do anything, and that is imho
lobbying, or spinning, or pandering to perceived threats, either way, its
no longer a rational debate, he is abusing his power as a rationale
presenter. He's an entertainer and should stick to that. I would be
fearful of all the things you mention, but I'm rational enough to know
that eventually, its us, the voter, who will bite back ! That's the way
to deal with it, not usurp some unelected influence you have.....rant
over . Buy a car to last, they wont be able to retrofit all this stuff!
The Reid
>Buy a car to last, they wont be able to retrofit all this stuff!
we plan to keep our current car "permanently", a Morgan would be
nice?
Although I'm not sure, I don't see why the cruise control cant be
modified, the car already has a GPS. The brakes would be more
difficult.
June Hughes
<DONT_USE...@fell-walker.co.uk> writes
>Following up to Big G
>
>>Buy a car to last, they wont be able to retrofit all this stuff!
>
>we plan to keep our current car "permanently", a Morgan would be
>nice?
>
>Although I'm not sure, I don't see why the cruise control cant be
>modified, the car already has a GPS. The brakes would be more
>difficult.
I'd rather like a new car. I have had my Volvo 740GLE saloon since it
was new in 1987. It goes OK but our mechanic says it is very tired.
140K on the clock. Bas says my idea of doing it up is ridiculous and
that he has never heard of anyone doing that, so I shall just keep on
until it stops altogether. I wrote a couple of long poems about it
(honest missus!) and emailed them to Jeremy Clarkson a few months ago
but nothing became of them. I don't think he likes Volvos anyway.
One of my closest friends has her father's old car (the original F-reg -
not 1988 but something like 1972). An 1100 with all that lovely veneer
on the panelling - now all cracked with so much exposure to the sun. It
goes well but has only done 23000 miles. No seat belts. Two doors. A
choke you have to pull out.
Sigh!
--
June Hughes
The Reid
> I have had my Volvo 740GLE saloon since it
>was new in 1987. It goes OK but our mechanic says it is very tired.
At least you know you have had value for money, changing cars every
three years is v expensive. I realise i'm very lucky having accesss to
a swishish lease car plus our inherited tiny 999cc auto Hyundai that
still only has 7000 miles on the clock after 3 years despite going to
the allotment most days. Its only been out of London once, to Reading,
I wish I could get one of those little pennant shaped stickers saying
"Reading" that people used to put on windows to show where the car had
been. It would look rather amusing.
Big G
+Ew...@theacct.demon.co.uk:
And no car tax neither!
Big G
> Following up to Big G
>
>>Buy a car to last, they wont be able to retrofit all this stuff!
>
> we plan to keep our current car "permanently", a Morgan would be
> nice?
>
> Although I'm not sure, I don't see why the cruise control cant be
> modified, the car already has a GPS. The brakes would be more
> difficult.
What cruise control? what GPS?
sw
> Following up to sw
>
> > it will be my
> >turn to drive north from Glasgow next time and I am seriously looking
> >forward to it!
>
> I switch the music off once into the Highlands.
We're very partial to celtic/folk rock and classical, which seems
appropriate. And I'd rather listen to 'Bat Out Of Hell' than take
caffeine to keep me going!
> >I don't mind stopping at motorway services -- it's a fascinating
> >foretaste of Limbo.
>
> Which ones have limbo dancers? I think the quality of food has
> nosedived again lately, having revisited one that a few years ago had
> been acceptable.
Ha! Twit. Limbo as in a permanent waiting room, neither here nor there.
Strange places, motorway services, don't seem quite real to me. Full of
people whose reason for stopping is that they're going somewhere else.
sw
> m...@privacy.net (sw) wrote in news:1fvzr1e.1aucydsrbblkuN%me8
> @privacy.net:
>
> > The Reid <DONT_USE...@fell-walker.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > [-]
> >
> >> BTW I forget to tell you i'm criminally insane when it comes to
> >> driving. (ie I havnt bought the govt/green party line on driving, I
> >> still enjoy it, think of me as the acceptable face of Jeremy
> >> Clarkeson, or possibly unacceptable) :-)
> >
> > I love driving, environmentally unsound as it is. I shall seriously
> > regret the day I can no longer afford to drive :-( But I'd never resort
> > to caffeine hits! Two coffee beans leave me shaking and feeling ill.
> The
> > two of us share the driving for that trip, swapping every three hours.
> > That, and lots of music makes for a glorious journey... it will be my
> > turn to drive north from Glasgow next time and I am seriously looking
> > forward to it!
> >
> > I don't mind stopping at motorway services -- it's a fascinating
> > foretaste of Limbo.
> I hope you'll do more than 'regret it' in the event you ever find
> you can no longer afford to drive. I for one, would rage against it, to
> the point of doing it, even if it's illegal! For if ever we do reach that
> point ever came then the car has reverted back to its original rich
> persons toy, the exclusive domain of 'those with the means' . Then with
> no reasonable alternative, I'd have to fight it tooth and nail!
Ah, but if there is a reasonable alternative my environmentally aware
conscience demands I sigh deeply and accept it. The days of the petrol
engine are numbered anyway -- there seems to be general agreement world
oil production will peak at best within the next 15 years, at worst
within the next five. Hydrogen might make it in time, but I'm not
prepared to bet on it. I doubt electric will give the same buzz, if you
know what I mean :-)
sw
> The Reid <DONT_USE...@fell-walker.co.uk> wrote in
> news:784sdv8unvfn8s5ci...@4ax.com:
>
> > Following up to Big G
> >
> >>Buy a car to last, they wont be able to retrofit all this stuff!
> >
> > we plan to keep our current car "permanently", a Morgan would be
> > nice?
> >
> > Although I'm not sure, I don't see why the cruise control cant be
> > modified, the car already has a GPS. The brakes would be more
> > difficult.
>
> What cruise control? what GPS?
Quite. When discussing 'what car I'd have if money were no object' the
other day, everyone else was going for current models. I want an
original Mini Cooper 'S' and/or a Porsche 911 Turbo. Possibly an old
Lotus (my dad had an Elan); I'd have to try them (and others) to see
which I preferred. I'm fed up with electronics, and electric windows and
automatic gearboxes and stuff: I want my foot to move the earth, as it
were, with the *minimum* electronic intervention. If I need a computer
to help me control it, I shouldn't be driving it!
The Reid
>> Although I'm not sure, I don't see why the cruise control cant be
>> modified, the car already has a GPS. The brakes would be more
>> difficult.
>
>What cruise control? what GPS?
both retro-fittable i'm afraid, but maybe not to all cars?
The Reid
>We're very partial to celtic/folk rock
Ceideley diddely music?
>and classical, which seems
>appropriate. And I'd rather listen to 'Bat Out Of Hell' than take
>caffeine to keep me going!
By the time I got to Poolewe she'd[1] be quaking - from playing it so
loud my ears would be bleeding.
1] SWMBO
>> >I don't mind stopping at motorway services -- it's a fascinating
>> >foretaste of Limbo.
>>
>> Which ones have limbo dancers? I think the quality of food has
>> nosedived again lately, having revisited one that a few years ago had
>> been acceptable.
>
>Ha! Twit. Limbo as in a permanent waiting room, neither here nor there.
Ah, I see, I wonder whos journeys end in heaven and which in hell? I
think your right though, not needing food in limbo would make them
ideal for the purpose, but you wouldnt catch me using the toilets
unless the doors came right down to the ground.
Big G
news:1fw1afk.zbxs8inm283kN%m...@privacy.net:
Its not that hydrogen wont make it in time......there wont be room in the
world for any more roads!
Big G
@privacy.net:
> Big G <Spam...@prevent.my.disclosing> wrote:
>
>> The Reid <DONT_USE...@fell-walker.co.uk> wrote in
>> news:784sdv8unvfn8s5ci...@4ax.com:
>>
>> > Following up to Big G
>> >
>> >>Buy a car to last, they wont be able to retrofit all this stuff!
>> >
>> > we plan to keep our current car "permanently", a Morgan would be
>> > nice?
>> >
>> > Although I'm not sure, I don't see why the cruise control cant be
>> > modified, the car already has a GPS. The brakes would be more
>> > difficult.
>>
>> What cruise control? what GPS?
>
> Quite. When discussing 'what car I'd have if money were no object' the
> other day, everyone else was going for current models. I want an
> original Mini Cooper 'S' and/or a Porsche 911 Turbo. Possibly an old
> Lotus (my dad had an Elan); I'd have to try them (and others) to see
> which I preferred. I'm fed up with electronics, and electric windows
and
> automatic gearboxes and stuff: I want my foot to move the earth, as it
> were, with the *minimum* electronic intervention. If I need a computer
> to help me control it, I shouldn't be driving it!
>
> regards
> sarah
>
>
Well said, spirited lady!
Big G
> Following up to Big G
>
>>> Although I'm not sure, I don't see why the cruise control cant be
>>> modified, the car already has a GPS. The brakes would be more
>>> difficult.
>>
>>What cruise control? what GPS?
>
> both retro-fittable i'm afraid, but maybe not to all cars?
Only with the owners consent !
They dont make you fit seatbelts if your car was built without them !
The Reid
> If I need a computer
>to help me control it, I shouldn't be driving it!
My ABS brakes the 4 wheels at different rates in an emergency, you
would prefer 4 pedals? :-)
GPS bleeps for cameras and black spots, strangly never in the same
place!
GPS can also give you directions, which makes driving alone safer
(although I dont have it, I have SWMBO instead).
Cruise control takes me through interminable roadworks at the limit
without frustration and speed creep.
The computer also displays how many miles of fuel I have left at
current driving style.
I sneered at the reversing "radar" but its very good and a safety
feature if someone walks behind the car.
All highly useful and dont interfere with the pleasure of driving,
honest!
The Reid
>>What cruise control? what GPS?
>
>both retro-fittable i'm afraid, but maybe not to all cars?
there is a date coming up when cars will have to be built to be able
to take the system as retro fit IIRC. So buy that car now!
The Reid
>> both retro-fittable i'm afraid, but maybe not to all cars?
>
>Only with the owners consent !
we will see.
Big G
> Following up to sw
>
>> If I need a computer
>>to help me control it, I shouldn't be driving it!
>
> My ABS brakes the 4 wheels at different rates in an emergency, you
> would prefer 4 pedals? :-)
Drive defensively and you wont need it.
> GPS bleeps for cameras and black spots, strangly never in the same
> place!
No, GPS identifies your position.
> GPS can also give you directions, which makes driving alone safer
> (although I dont have it, I have SWMBO instead).
Navigation systems with GPS positioning do this, not GPS systems alone.
What would you rely on if (when) they break down/are or are simply
incorrect? Stop the car an argue with it?
> Cruise control takes me through interminable roadworks at the limit
> without frustration and speed creep.
Wrong tool!, A speed limiter would be more effective, allowing you to
brake, but not exceed the speed as opposed to setting the 'lowest' speed
limit and then having to reset it wfter using the brake/clutch
> The computer also displays how many miles of fuel I have left at
> current driving style.
You really need a computer to tell you something like that, with such a
keen level of accuracy? I hope the filling station you are aiming for
applies the same acurracy to its stock control, so that it has fuel stock
left for you. Calculating it in your mind helps keep you alert.
> I sneered at the reversing "radar" but its very good and a safety
> feature if someone walks behind the car
I'd rather rely on 'locating device MK1: The eyeball!' especially where
people are concerned, and I think they use sonic emissions rather than
Microwaves
>
> All highly useful and dont interfere with the pleasure of driving,
> honest!
Spherical objects Mike, they are all , ALL gadgets! Not one is
neccessary, and interestingly, not one has to be fitted by law in any
car!
Big G
> Following up to Big G
>
>>> both retro-fittable i'm afraid, but maybe not to all cars?
>>
>>Only with the owners consent !
>
> we will see.
I wont worry about it just yet then:-). However, imagine a time when we
are all fully dependant on an accurate GPS service for our survival. And
I mean surviving everything, from managing crop growth to flood levels,
or the prevention of planes, ships and trains colliding with eath other
and us, or our cars, and pets, and grannies, and houses. Who then,
ensures that it does not become the prime target for sabotage by anyone
with a grudge against it, or its current owners, the US Department of
Defense? Well, the technology is as usual, great, but it does'nt fix the
original problem, too many humans, Jeez man, who needs them? Still, I
guess theres always Wars, Floods, Famine, Pile ups and pestilence isnt
there?
The Reid
>Only with the owners consent !
>They dont make you fit seatbelts if your car was built without them !
This could reverse the status quo!
Its 2015 and a line of Mercs and Audis driven by driven young
achievers potter along at speed controlled 50 with radar controlled
gaps in between. Sarah, G and myself, in our superannuated motors,
weave in and out of the line, thus forcing each Merc to automatically
slow down to maintain its correct braking distance. Hey! I might get
one of those three wheel motorbikes where you get to not wear a
helmet!
"Born to be free"
The Reid
>> My ABS brakes the 4 wheels at different rates in an emergency, you
>> would prefer 4 pedals? :-)
>Drive defensively and you wont need it.
Absolutly disagree, having once been forced to brake with two wheels
on wet grass by some oncoming idiot on a mountain road.
Theres no case for having inferior brakes/tyres than you can have.
>> GPS bleeps for cameras and black spots, strangly never in the same
>> place!
>No, GPS identifies your position.
OK "Road Angel GPS based system" if you prefer
>> GPS can also give you directions, which makes driving alone safer
>> (although I dont have it, I have SWMBO instead).
>Navigation systems with GPS positioning do this, not GPS systems alone.
Indeed
>What would you rely on if (when) they break down/are or are simply
>incorrect? Stop the car an argue with it?
Get the map out, which is a poor alternative when alone on unknown
roads, but then I dont have the system anyway.
>> Cruise control takes me through interminable roadworks at the limit
>> without frustration and speed creep.
>Wrong tool!, A speed limiter would be more effective, allowing you to
>brake, but not exceed the speed as opposed to setting the 'lowest' speed
>limit and then having to reset it wfter using the brake/clutch
That would not allow me to give my right leg a rest but it has merits,
so limiters are a gadget you like?
>> The computer also displays how many miles of fuel I have left at
>> current driving style.
>You really need a computer to tell you something like that, with such a
>keen level of accuracy? I hope the filling station you are aiming for
>applies the same acurracy to its stock control, so that it has fuel stock
>left for you. Calculating it in your mind helps keep you alert.
If you like, its no big deal, a minor feature, I also like the way it
bleeps when outside temperature nears zero, no doubt you prefer to
drive with one hand out the window holding a thermometer? :-)
>> I sneered at the reversing "radar" but its very good and a safety
>> feature if someone walks behind the car
>I'd rather rely on 'locating device MK1: The eyeball!' especially where
>people are concerned, and I think they use sonic emissions rather than
>Microwaves
Its an excellent backup to your eyes and spots things you cannot see
in the blind area immediatly behind the car......like a small child.
In five years all cars will have them.
>> All highly useful and dont interfere with the pleasure of driving,
>> honest!
>
>Spherical objects Mike, they are all , ALL gadgets! Not one is
>neccessary, and interestingly, not one has to be fitted by law in any
>car!
All excellent, all make driving safer and/or more enjoyable. BTW Whats
law got to do with it? Are radial typres a legal requirement, are they
better than crossply? Are disk brakes a legal requirement? Are they
better than drums? Multiple air bags? Traction control? Side impact
bars? Variable lift double overhead camshafts? That little
retractable hook you hang your jacket on etc etc etc.
One gadget available I didnt have was automatic windscreen wipers, I
just dont believe it would work, but I may be wrong. In fact I didnt
spec any gadgets that were not standard, but i'm now glad they are
there.
The Reid
> but it does'nt fix the
>original problem, too many humans,
yep.
I dont use a GPS as a navigation tool when walking, the old map and
compass is much more reliable.
sw
> The Reid <DONT_USE...@fell-walker.co.uk> wrote in
> news:4l7udvglf5t7g8bql...@4ax.com:
>
> > Following up to sw
> >
> >> If I need a computer
> >>to help me control it, I shouldn't be driving it!
> >
> > My ABS brakes the 4 wheels at different rates in an emergency, you
> > would prefer 4 pedals? :-)
> Drive defensively and you wont need it.
What he said :-)
Although 'unlikely to need it' is more accurate. I can envisage
situations in which that sort of braking could prevent an accident, such
as an idiot pulling out *right* in front of me, but I should be watching
for idiots, assuming that everyone else on/near the road is an idiot, or
I deserve the consequences. As does the idiot who pulls out in front of
me.
> > GPS bleeps for cameras and black spots, strangly never in the same
> > place!
> No, GPS identifies your position.
What a distraction ;-) *Technically* if I'm speeding I deserve the
ticket, just as I deserve an accident if I'm driving without paying
attention to black spots (many are signed, anyway). Defensive driving
reduces the likelihood of tickets and accidents.
> > GPS can also give you directions, which makes driving alone safer
> > (although I dont have it, I have SWMBO instead).
> Navigation systems with GPS positioning do this, not GPS systems alone.
> What would you rely on if (when) they break down/are or are simply
> incorrect? Stop the car an argue with it?
Plan the journey ahead of time (on long solo trips I list the roads to
be travelled and the junctions at which I change). For our first trip to
northwest Scotland we used the RAC/AA online routefinder verified with
our own perceptions. If it all goes pear-shaped, pull off the road and
look at the map -- or ask a passer-by.
> > Cruise control takes me through interminable roadworks at the limit
> > without frustration and speed creep.
> Wrong tool!, A speed limiter would be more effective, allowing you to
> brake, but not exceed the speed as opposed to setting the 'lowest' speed
> limit and then having to reset it wfter using the brake/clutch
Roadworks are a fact of life, like taxes and cleaning the loo. I just
turn the music up and think of it as an opportunity to demonstrate my
patience and ability to keep *precisely* to a set speed ;-)
> > The computer also displays how many miles of fuel I have left at
> > current driving style.
> You really need a computer to tell you something like that, with such a
> keen level of accuracy? I hope the filling station you are aiming for
> applies the same acurracy to its stock control, so that it has fuel stock
> left for you. Calculating it in your mind helps keep you alert.
The computer would be amusing, but not essential. AFAIK if fuel level is
an issue, a steady 56mph is desirable. But I should have filled the tank
before it hit the red.
> > I sneered at the reversing "radar" but its very good and a safety
> > feature if someone walks behind the car
> I'd rather rely on 'locating device MK1: The eyeball!' especially where
> people are concerned, and I think they use sonic emissions rather than
> Microwaves
Besides which, you're doomed to manual reversing when it breaks down.
Practice makes perfect...
> > All highly useful and dont interfere with the pleasure of driving,
> > honest!
>
> Spherical objects Mike, they are all , ALL gadgets! Not one is
> neccessary, and interestingly, not one has to be fitted by law in any
> car!
And some of them are distractions, others a nuisance when they die. Just
like electric windows.
sw
> m...@privacy.net (sw) wrote in news:1fw1kp7.1cydh1f11ayawwN%me8
> @privacy.net:
>
> > Big G <Spam...@prevent.my.disclosing> wrote:
[-]
> >> What cruise control? what GPS?
> >
> > Quite. When discussing 'what car I'd have if money were no object' the
> > other day, everyone else was going for current models. I want an
> > original Mini Cooper 'S' and/or a Porsche 911 Turbo. Possibly an old
> > Lotus (my dad had an Elan); I'd have to try them (and others) to see
> > which I preferred. I'm fed up with electronics, and electric windows
> and
> > automatic gearboxes and stuff: I want my foot to move the earth, as it
> > were, with the *minimum* electronic intervention. If I need a computer
> > to help me control it, I shouldn't be driving it!
> >
>
> Well said, spirited lady!
<blushes>
sw
> Following up to Big G
>
> >Only with the owners consent !
> >They dont make you fit seatbelts if your car was built without them !
>
> This could reverse the status quo!
>
> Its 2015 and a line of Mercs and Audis driven by driven young
> achievers potter along at speed controlled 50 with radar controlled
> gaps in between. Sarah, G and myself, in our superannuated motors,
> weave in and out of the line, thus forcing each Merc to automatically
> slow down to maintain its correct braking distance. Hey! I might get
> one of those three wheel motorbikes where you get to not wear a
> helmet!
>
> "Born to be free"
And better still, our cars will be immune to directed EMPs.
Flora
> The Reid <DONT_USE...@fell-walker.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>This could reverse the status quo!
>>
>>Its 2015 and a line of Mercs and Audis driven by driven young
>>achievers potter along at speed controlled 50 with radar controlled
>>gaps in between. Sarah, G and myself, in our superannuated motors,
>>weave in and out of the line, thus forcing each Merc to automatically
>>slow down to maintain its correct braking distance. Hey! I might get
>>one of those three wheel motorbikes where you get to not wear a
>>helmet!
>>
>>"Born to be free"
>
Ahem.
Have I stumbled into uk.rec.cars by mistake?
sw
> Following up to sw
>
> >We're very partial to celtic/folk rock
>
> Ceideley diddely music?
Some of it. And some of it is *a lot* louder :-)
> >and classical, which seems
> >appropriate. And I'd rather listen to 'Bat Out Of Hell' than take
> >caffeine to keep me going!
>
> By the time I got to Poolewe she'd[1] be quaking - from playing it so
> loud my ears would be bleeding.
>
> 1] SWMBO
My husband had to ask what that meant!
> >> >I don't mind stopping at motorway services -- it's a fascinating
> >> >foretaste of Limbo.
> >>
> >> Which ones have limbo dancers? I think the quality of food has
> >> nosedived again lately, having revisited one that a few years ago had
> >> been acceptable.
> >
> >Ha! Twit. Limbo as in a permanent waiting room, neither here nor there.
>
> Ah, I see, I wonder whos journeys end in heaven and which in hell? I
> think your right though, not needing food in limbo would make them
> ideal for the purpose, but you wouldnt catch me using the toilets
> unless the doors came right down to the ground.
?! perhaps this is a male thing. As it were.
sw
er, sorry, Miss!
I must remember to mark off-topic threads OT in the subject header
I must remember to mark off-topic threads OT in the subject header
I must remember to mark off-topic threads OT in the subject header
I must remember to mark off-topic threads OT in the subject header
I must remember to mark off-topic threads OT in the subject header
I must remember to mark off-topic threads OT in the subject header
I must remember to mark off-topic threads OT in the subject header
I must remember to mark off-topic threads OT in the subject header
I must remember to mark off-topic threads OT in the subject header
Isn't cut&paste wonderful? ;-)
The Reid
>> 1] SWMBO
>
>My husband had to ask what that meant!
so does that imply you are the downtrodden mouse type?
topical tip No 3
If your journey is long and you dont like the food in motorway
services, make some sandwiches.
The Reid
>And better still, our cars will be immune to directed EMPs.
wassat?
The Reid
>> Drive defensively and you wont need it.
>
>What he said :-)
>
>Although 'unlikely to need it' is more accurate. I can envisage
>situations in which that sort of braking could prevent an accident, such
>as an idiot pulling out *right* in front of me, but I should be watching
>for idiots, assuming that everyone else on/near the road is an idiot, or
>I deserve the consequences. As does the idiot who pulls out in front of
>me.
If you drive defensibly and have the better brakes how can that not be
better, but I agree people tend to use improvements in cars just to go
faster, rather than safer.
>> > GPS bleeps for cameras and black spots, strangly never in the same
>> > place!
>> No, GPS identifies your position.
>
>What a distraction ;-) *Technically* if I'm speeding I deserve the
>ticket,
Yes, like the one enforcing the 70 on the M1 at one point.
>just as I deserve an accident if I'm driving without paying
>attention to black spots (many are signed, anyway). Defensive driving
>reduces the likelihood of tickets and accidents.
Not a distraction at all. None of the blackspots so far have been
signed.
>> > GPS can also give you directions, which makes driving alone safer
>> > (although I dont have it, I have SWMBO instead).
>> Navigation systems with GPS positioning do this, not GPS systems alone.
>> What would you rely on if (when) they break down/are or are simply
>> incorrect? Stop the car an argue with it?
>
>Plan the journey ahead of time (on long solo trips I list the roads to
>be travelled and the junctions at which I change). For our first trip to
>northwest Scotland we used the RAC/AA online routefinder verified with
>our own perceptions. If it all goes pear-shaped, pull off the road and
>look at the map -- or ask a passer-by.
I dont have the system but for anybody who drives a lot on thier own I
cant see anything against it, the planning option isnt always availabe
for many working drivers. In a busy city on your own its quite
difficult to keep stopping to look at the map.
<***food relevant point for Flora***>
One gizmo I noted on someone elses car, refrigerated glove box, now
theres a feature, cool gloves! :-)
>Roadworks are a fact of life, like taxes and cleaning the loo. I just
>turn the music up and think of it as an opportunity to demonstrate my
>patience and ability to keep *precisely* to a set speed ;-)
stiil easier with cruise, turn up the music? Thats distracting :-)
>The computer would be amusing, but not essential. AFAIK if fuel level is
>an issue, a steady 56mph is desirable. But I should have filled the tank
>before it hit the red.
Yes, I agree its not essential but the idea *is* to not fill up when
you hit red but at a convenient point that will get you to your
destination with the least inconvenient fuel stops.
>> > I sneered at the reversing "radar" but its very good and a safety
>> > feature if someone walks behind the car
>> I'd rather rely on 'locating device MK1: The eyeball!' especially where
>> people are concerned, and I think they use sonic emissions rather than
>> Microwaves
>
>Besides which, you're doomed to manual reversing when it breaks down.
>Practice makes perfect...
It doesnt control reversing, just gives you extra "vision", and see
below.
>And some of them are distractions, others a nuisance when they die. Just
>like electric windows.
the thing is, things rarely go wrong on modern cars. I've now had 4
lease cars in a row over 10 years, no breakdowns touch wood, attention
between services has been one loose hose clip, one electric window
motor[1], adjustment to a door handle and a false alarm on a warning
light which turned out to be because I wasnt revving the 16v engine
enough. (Honda had zero faults in three years). Our little inherited
Hyundai hasnt had anything go wrong either in 3 years.
1] I think this is because the car has the possibly OTT feature of
opening the window a little every time you close the door to reduce
air pressure, a lot of work to do.
The Reid
>er, sorry, Miss!
>
I must remember to mark off-topic threads OT in the subject header
I must remember to mark off-topic threads OT in the subject header
I must remember to mark off-topic threads OT in the subject header
I must remember to mark off-topic threads OT in the subject header
I must remember to mark off-topic threads OT in the subject header
I must remember to mark off-topic threads OT in the subject header
I must remember to mark off-topic threads OT in the subject header
I must remember to mark off-topic threads OT in the subject header
I must remember to mark off-topic threads OT in the subject header
even easier! :-)
Car fridge, good idea?
Don and Wendy
>Following up to sw
>
>> If I need a computer
>>to help me control it, I shouldn't be driving it!
>
>My ABS brakes the 4 wheels at different rates in an emergency, you
>would prefer 4 pedals? :-)
>GPS bleeps for cameras and black spots, strangly never in the same
>place!
>GPS can also give you directions, which makes driving alone safer
>(although I dont have it, I have SWMBO instead).
>Cruise control takes me through interminable roadworks at the limit
>without frustration and speed creep.
>The computer also displays how many miles of fuel I have left at
>current driving style.
>I sneered at the reversing "radar" but its very good and a safety
>feature if someone walks behind the car.
>
>All highly useful and dont interfere with the pleasure of driving,
>honest!
I disagree. These, in the main, are gimmicks, useful as some may be in
certain given situations. There is absolutely no substitute for:
a) A thoroughly good grounding in traffic theory and practice on the road, in
all conditions, supervised by a competent and experienced driver. I would
include driving at night and in all possible conditions.
b) Driving a variety of vehicles, even if only limited to two, to extend the
practical experience.
c) An absolute limit, for the 1st year on the size, capacity and power of any
vehicle driven, after passing the test. Any failure to comply resulting in
stringent retesting.
d) All drivers to display a green learner sign for first year of driving.
I applaud all new safety features introduced to save lives, but those which
lull the driver into a false sense of sucurity are a danger in themselves.
Making two meat and potato pies this morning, one for tonight's feast and one
to freeze.
Don
Flora
>
> <***food relevant point for Flora***>
> One gizmo I noted on someone elses car, refrigerated glove box, now
> theres a feature, cool gloves! :-)
>
LOL!!!
Now thats one *cool* idea - I want one!
Flora
Big G
> Following up to Big G
>
>>> My ABS brakes the 4 wheels at different rates in an emergency, you
>>> would prefer 4 pedals? :-)
>>Drive defensively and you wont need it.
>
> Absolutly disagree, having once been forced to brake with two wheels
> on wet grass by some oncoming idiot on a mountain road.
That was probably me, i;ve ran quite a few grockels off the road on Skye,
in the highland, Wales and more revently in the Apennines !Must have been
me !
>
> Theres no case for having inferior brakes/tyres than you can have.
Yes there is.....adrenalin!
>
>>> GPS bleeps for cameras and black spots, strangly never in the same
>>> place!
>>No, GPS identifies your position.
>
> OK "Road Angel GPS based system" if you prefer
Angles one o'clock Bandits at six? bad news all round!
>
>>> GPS can also give you directions, which makes driving alone safer
>>> (although I dont have it, I have SWMBO instead).
>>Navigation systems with GPS positioning do this, not GPS systems
>>alone.
>
> Indeed
>
>>What would you rely on if (when) they break down/are or are simply
>>incorrect? Stop the car an argue with it?
>
> Get the map out, which is a poor alternative when alone on unknown
> roads, but then I dont have the system anyway.
I'm a biased private pilot and used to thinking three dimensinally you
cant stop, to ... etc etc,.
>
>>> Cruise control takes me through interminable roadworks at the limit
>>> without frustration and speed creep.
>>Wrong tool!, A speed limiter would be more effective, allowing you to
>>brake, but not exceed the speed as opposed to setting the 'lowest'
>>speed limit and then having to reset it wfter using the brake/clutch
>
> That would not allow me to give my right leg a rest but it has merits,
> so limiters are a gadget you like?
Not as a gadget no, but it would be an useful feature, at times. My point
was, yes I use Crusile control in speed control areas and i've found its
limitation, and it is apparent that speed limiters would be a better
tool.
>
>>> The computer also displays how many miles of fuel I have left at
>>> current driving style.
>>You really need a computer to tell you something like that, with such
>>a keen level of accuracy? I hope the filling station you are aiming
>>for applies the same acurracy to its stock control, so that it has
>>fuel stock left for you. Calculating it in your mind helps keep you
>>alert.
>
> If you like, its no big deal, a minor feature, I also like the way it
> bleeps when outside temperature nears zero, no doubt you prefer to
> drive with one hand out the window holding a thermometer? :-)
Nah, dont be thirry....you'd be recording the wind chill then ;-)
>
>>> I sneered at the reversing "radar" but its very good and a safety
>>> feature if someone walks behind the car
>>I'd rather rely on 'locating device MK1: The eyeball!' especially
>>where people are concerned, and I think they use sonic emissions
>>rather than Microwaves
>
> Its an excellent backup to your eyes and spots things you cannot see
> in the blind area immediatly behind the car......like a small child.
> In five years all cars will have them.
I'm V. V serious here.....you are of course correct, and I wouldnt
prevent that being legislated for, since I have had first hand experince
of a father who reversed over and killed his child not so long ago a :-(
>
>>> All highly useful and dont interfere with the pleasure of driving,
>>> honest!
>>
>>Spherical objects Mike, they are all , ALL gadgets! Not one is
>>neccessary, and interestingly, not one has to be fitted by law in any
>>car!
>
> All excellent, all make driving safer and/or more enjoyable. BTW Whats
> law got to do with it? Are radial typres a legal requirement, are they
> better than crossply? Are disk brakes a legal requirement? Are they
> better than drums? Multiple air bags? Traction control? Side impact
> bars? Variable lift double overhead camshafts? That little
> retractable hook you hang your jacket on etc etc etc.
>
> One gadget available I didnt have was automatic windscreen wipers, I
> just dont believe it would work, but I may be wrong. In fact I didnt
> spec any gadgets that were not standard, but i'm now glad they are
> there.
Yesh well, each to their own . I'm probably as attracted to gadgets as
you, but I'm not as paranoid about their being forced on the motorist
just yet!
Dave Fawthrop
wrote:
I have one and it does not work :-(
It may work it you have the air conditioning on for hours, but noot on the
journeys we do.
ob food
Even the cool coke can place does not work :-(
I end up drinking *warm* coke :-((((((((((((((((((((((((((
Dave Fawthrop <da...@hyphenologist.co.uk>
Big G
news:1fw30ak.19m5e541hc4sasN%m...@privacy.net:
> Big G <Spam...@prevent.my.disclosing> wrote:
>
>> The Reid <DONT_USE...@fell-walker.co.uk> wrote in
>> news:4l7udvglf5t7g8bql...@4ax.com:
>>
>> > Following up to sw
>> >
>> >> If I need a computer
>> >>to help me control it, I shouldn't be driving it!
>> >
>> > My ABS brakes the 4 wheels at different rates in an emergency, you
>> > would prefer 4 pedals? :-)
>> Drive defensively and you wont need it.
>
> What he said :-)
>
> Although 'unlikely to need it' is more accurate. I can envisage
> situations in which that sort of braking could prevent an accident,
> such as an idiot pulling out *right* in front of me, but I should be
> watching for idiots, assuming that everyone else on/near the road is
> an idiot, or I deserve the consequences. As does the idiot who pulls
> out in front of me.
It's called threat & opportuntiy assesment. Your view is filled with
threats and opportunities, not just directly in front of you, but also in
the mile or so distant , or just a minute away when driving at 60 mph!
What does it mean when you look forward two hundred yards to and see
kerbstones on the right, with 45 deg, edges, then 400 yards ahead again on
the right, those kerbstones now have 90 degree edges. It means, in two
hundred yards this could be a potential safe escape route, but in 400
yards it should not to be considerd an escape route. What about a line of
trees or/and telegraph poles running at right angles to the road 25 yards
beyond the next bend? Threat? Potentially, it could be a farm track just
being aware of it means you can prepare!
The Reid
>> OK "Road Angel GPS based system" if you prefer
>
>Angles one o'clock Bandits at six? bad news all round!
Its the Jutes you *really* want to watch for :-)
The Reid
>I disagree. These, in the main, are gimmicks, useful as some may be in
>certain given situations. There is absolutely no substitute for:
<snipped>
I agree driver skill is more important than any features of the car,
but I disagree that these things lull you into a false sense of
security or are gimmicks.
GPS free you from distractions to concentrate on what your doing.
ABS brakes and reverse alarm are self evident. The minor things are
just minor things except..........
.
.
.
Nobody has commented on the most important component:-
the little pop up hook to hang your jacket on.
Big G
> Following up to Don and Wendy
>
>>I disagree. These, in the main, are gimmicks, useful as some may be in
>>certain given situations. There is absolutely no substitute for:
>
><snipped>
>
> I agree driver skill is more important than any features of the car,
> but I disagree that these things lull you into a false sense of
> security or are gimmicks.
>
> GPS free you from distractions to concentrate on what your doing.
> ABS brakes and reverse alarm are self evident. The minor things are
> just minor things except..........
> .
> .
> .
> Nobody has commented on the most important component:-
> the little pop up hook to hang your jacket on.
You spend twenty big ones, and I mean BIG ONE's on a jacket and pop it on
a little plastic pop up hook? Me? I let the butler handle such things. I
expect him to hang it on a hanger. Now then, threat or opportunity? Lets
hope it does'nt obscure my vision when I lean the car into an opposite
camber turn........!
Can we please stop talking cars now ?
June Hughes
<DONT_USE...@fell-walker.co.uk> writes
>Following up to sw
>
>>> 1] SWMBO
>>
>>My husband had to ask what that meant!
>
>so does that imply you are the downtrodden mouse type?
>
>topical tip No 3
>If your journey is long and you dont like the food in motorway
>services, make some sandwiches.
On holiday last year, we stopped at a service station on the A1 -
somewhere near Blyth - can't remember now. It was one of those taken
over by a new group - I think they were formerly Granada or something.
I bought a prawn sandwich and it contained three prawns. I complained
and they replaced it with one containing about 5 prawns. We filled in
the comments cards and posted them in the box. Younger sprog (then13)
was very critical but made us all laugh by signing his survey card 'Hugh
Jarse'.
--
June Hughes
sw
> Following up to sw
>
> >> 1] SWMBO
> >
> >My husband had to ask what that meant!
>
> so does that imply you are the downtrodden mouse type?
I don't think I'm a downtrodden mouse, but I certainly don't expect to
be obeyed, either ;-)
And I rarely ask. If obedience is demanded, one has to reciprocate in
due course.
> topical tip No 3
> If your journey is long and you dont like the food in motorway
> services, make some sandwiches.
s/lots of
Or take a proper picnic and plan a diversion onto 'B' roads to find a
spot for luncheon.
sw
> Following up to sw
>
> >> Drive defensively and you wont need it.
> >
> >What he said :-)
> >
> >Although 'unlikely to need it' is more accurate. I can envisage
> >situations in which that sort of braking could prevent an accident, such
> >as an idiot pulling out *right* in front of me, but I should be watching
> >for idiots, assuming that everyone else on/near the road is an idiot, or
> >I deserve the consequences. As does the idiot who pulls out in front of
> >me.
>
> If you drive defensibly and have the better brakes how can that not be
> better, but I agree people tend to use improvements in cars just to go
> faster, rather than safer.
I think that's my point. If I'm paying attention and driving
appropriately, chances are I will never need ABS -- touch wood I never
have to date, which is just as well because none of my cars have it. I
know to pump the brakes to prevent skids when braking, 'cos I was taught
to. I can't pump as fast as the ABS, but *if* I'm careful I don't need
to. Driving into town today on the crest of a slight incline an oncoming
van slowed, then stopped to pull across my lane into a side road. I
automatically slowed because I couldn't see behind him and there is a
pedestrian crossing and a drive nearby. Someone might have tried to nip
across the road -- and in fact, someone did. The car behind the van
whipped straight across the road in front of me, into the drive. If I'd
been doing the 30 limit, I might well have hit him, but because I'd
already slowed, braking hard sufficed even on a wet road. Not showing
off or anything, just describing the way I think when driving :-)
> >> > GPS bleeps for cameras and black spots, strangly never in the same
> >> > place!
> >> No, GPS identifies your position.
> >
> >What a distraction ;-) *Technically* if I'm speeding I deserve the
> >ticket,
>
> Yes, like the one enforcing the 70 on the M1 at one point.
Or the ones enforcing the variable limits on the M25...
> >just as I deserve an accident if I'm driving without paying
> >attention to black spots (many are signed, anyway). Defensive driving
> >reduces the likelihood of tickets and accidents.
>
> Not a distraction at all. None of the blackspots so far have been
> signed.
hmm. I've seen lots of roadsigns warning of blind hill crests, concealed
junctions, etc. There are other places that aren't signed, but I should
notice what the road is doing. In truth I think the Americans have the
right idea here -- in some states they erect a small white cross where
ever someone dies in a road accident. A forest of small white crosses
makes one pay *serious* attention to the road.
> >> > GPS can also give you directions, which makes driving alone safer
> >> > (although I dont have it, I have SWMBO instead).
> >> Navigation systems with GPS positioning do this, not GPS systems alone.
> >> What would you rely on if (when) they break down/are or are simply
> >> incorrect? Stop the car an argue with it?
> >
> >Plan the journey ahead of time (on long solo trips I list the roads to
> >be travelled and the junctions at which I change). For our first trip to
> >northwest Scotland we used the RAC/AA online routefinder verified with
> >our own perceptions. If it all goes pear-shaped, pull off the road and
> >look at the map -- or ask a passer-by.
>
> I dont have the system but for anybody who drives a lot on thier own I
> cant see anything against it, the planning option isnt always availabe
> for many working drivers. In a busy city on your own its quite
> difficult to keep stopping to look at the map.
Oi! I have very little knowledge of London, but armed with an A-Z I
drive by myself, and enjoy it. I stop and look at the map, I drive round
and round roundabouts, I have a great time :-)
> <***food relevant point for Flora***>
> One gizmo I noted on someone elses car, refrigerated glove box, now
> theres a feature, cool gloves! :-)
>
> >Roadworks are a fact of life, like taxes and cleaning the loo. I just
> >turn the music up and think of it as an opportunity to demonstrate my
> >patience and ability to keep *precisely* to a set speed ;-)
>
> stiil easier with cruise, turn up the music? Thats distracting :-)
At 20mph I feel I can afford a small distraction :-)
> >The computer would be amusing, but not essential. AFAIK if fuel level is
> >an issue, a steady 56mph is desirable. But I should have filled the tank
> >before it hit the red.
>
> Yes, I agree its not essential but the idea *is* to not fill up when
> you hit red but at a convenient point that will get you to your
> destination with the least inconvenient fuel stops.
I wonder if part of the difference between us is that you're inclined to
travel to arrive, as it were, whereas I regard the drive as part of the
fun. I don't really mind stopping at services to fill up -- on occasion
we'll have an exorbitantly expensive soft drink in the café, because
it's all part of the experience. We *used* to hammer our way from A to
B, but have mellowed a bit with age :-)
>
> >> > I sneered at the reversing "radar" but its very good and a safety
> >> > feature if someone walks behind the car
> >> I'd rather rely on 'locating device MK1: The eyeball!' especially where
> >> people are concerned, and I think they use sonic emissions rather than
> >> Microwaves
> >
> >Besides which, you're doomed to manual reversing when it breaks down.
> >Practice makes perfect...
>
> It doesnt control reversing, just gives you extra "vision", and see
> below.
>
> >And some of them are distractions, others a nuisance when they die. Just
> >like electric windows.
>
> the thing is, things rarely go wrong on modern cars. I've now had 4
> lease cars in a row over 10 years, no breakdowns touch wood, attention
> between services has been one loose hose clip, one electric window
> motor[1], adjustment to a door handle and a false alarm on a warning
> light which turned out to be because I wasnt revving the 16v engine
> enough. (Honda had zero faults in three years). Our little inherited
> Hyundai hasnt had anything go wrong either in 3 years.
>
> 1] I think this is because the car has the possibly OTT feature of
> opening the window a little every time you close the door to reduce
> air pressure, a lot of work to do.
Crumbs. Relatively little goes wrong with my cars, but then I've always
been third/fourth/fifth owner, so the lemons are weeded out before they
reach my price range! And they have relatively few gadgets. I confess
the radio in the Polo was duff when I bought it three years ago and I
just --today, in fact -- found a spare tuit and had it fixed. But the
electric window in his last car died after about a year. I gather the
windows are known for this, as the motors have to do a lot of work.
Myself, I'm happier with a manual winder as I've only known one of those
die in 20-odd years.
sw
[-]
> Nobody has commented on the most important component:-
> the little pop up hook to hang your jacket on.
Oooh, shiny!
sw
> Following up to sw
>
> >er, sorry, Miss!
> >
> I must remember to mark off-topic threads OT in the subject header
> I must remember to mark off-topic threads OT in the subject header
> I must remember to mark off-topic threads OT in the subject header
> I must remember to mark off-topic threads OT in the subject header
> I must remember to mark off-topic threads OT in the subject header
> I must remember to mark off-topic threads OT in the subject header
> I must remember to mark off-topic threads OT in the subject header
> I must remember to mark off-topic threads OT in the subject header
> I must remember to mark off-topic threads OT in the subject header
>
> even easier! :-)
Hmmm.
>
> Car fridge, good idea?
He's not allowed to turn the AC on!
sw
> Following up to Big G
>
> >> OK "Road Angel GPS based system" if you prefer
> >
> >Angles one o'clock Bandits at six? bad news all round!
>
> Its the Jutes you *really* want to watch for :-)
Nice one. If I'd had a coffee, it would have been all over the keyboard
after that!
Don and Wendy
>Following up to Don and Wendy
>
>>I disagree. These, in the main, are gimmicks, useful as some may be in
>>certain given situations. There is absolutely no substitute for:
>
><snipped>
>
>I agree driver skill is more important than any features of the car,
>but I disagree that these things lull you into a false sense of
>security or are gimmicks.
If travelling at a steady 50 mph without having to resort to 'touching your
brake occasionally' or 'changing gear', are the optimum necessities for you,
perhaps you ought to consider a chaffeur as a prime requisite ;-) Most
drivers accept roadworks as 'par for the course'.
>
>GPS free you from distractions to concentrate on what your doing.
GPS actually means, avoidance of 'pre-planning the route' a lazy motorists
option -What's wrong with a map and a brain?
>ABS brakes and reverse alarm are self evident.
Reversing is a skill to be practised, not deligated to a computer. If you are
not observing all around your vehicle, before committing yourself to the
manouvre, then you shouldn't be driving in the first place! You sound old
enough to appreciate that point. Sure, many idiots cross, from the curb, both
in front and behind you, but you don't need a signal from a computer to
indicate this fact, unless you have entered senility ;-) What do you really
want - a computer driven car?
>Nobody has commented on the most important component:-
>the little pop up hook to hang your jacket on.
Sounds like a salesman to me. I just place my jacket on the back seat, no
creasing, no problem!
Cheers
Don
--
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
The Reid
>I think that's my point. If I'm paying attention and driving
>appropriately, chances are I will never need ABS -- touch wood I never
>have to date, which is just as well because none of my cars have it. I
>know to pump the brakes to prevent skids when braking, 'cos I was taught
>to. I can't pump as fast as the ABS
Yes, but ABS does more than that, it brakes the 4 wheels
*independently* to the limit of their adhesion, which the driver
cannot do, even if Jenson Button, you would need a GM version, crossed
with an arachnid! :-)
I have hardly ever known it operate, as like you, I prefer to
anticipate the need for slowing, but you never know when something
genuinely unexpected might happen, so I prefer to have the best brakes
possible.
The Reid
>>>I disagree. These, in the main, are gimmicks, useful as some may be in
>>>certain given situations. There is absolutely no substitute for:
>>
>><snipped>
>>
>>I agree driver skill is more important than any features of the car,
>>but I disagree that these things lull you into a false sense of
>>security or are gimmicks.
>
>If travelling at a steady 50 mph without having to resort to 'touching your
>brake occasionally' or 'changing gear', are the optimum necessities for you,
>perhaps you ought to consider a chaffeur as a prime requisite ;-) Most
>drivers accept roadworks as 'par for the course'.
they are "par for the course". I dont have a problem with that.
Chauffeur? No way! I use the cruise in roadworks (which currently
cover much of the M6) consisting of cones and not much else, cruise
isnt an "optimum necessity" just useful.
>>GPS free you from distractions to concentrate on what your doing.
>
>GPS actually means, avoidance of 'pre-planning the route' a lazy motorists
>option -What's wrong with a map and a brain?
Perhaps you can memorise complex routes through unkown cities. I
cannot. Having a prompt would be a benefit, at least I assume it
would, noy having the system.
>>ABS brakes and reverse alarm are self evident.
>
>Reversing is a skill to be practised, not deligated to a computer. If you are
>not observing all around your vehicle, before committing yourself to the
>manouvre, then you shouldn't be driving in the first place!
Do you always get out of the vehicle and check for anything immediatly
behind the car before reversing? No. Even if you did something could
arrive while you got back in the car.
You stop on a narrow lane meeting an oncoming car. You need to
reverse. I have never seen anybody get out and check the blind spot
behind and below the rear window of the car.
Reversing is not being delegated to a computer, you just get some
extra info.
I was sceptical before I had it, but believe me its a good thing, IMO
all lorries/vans should be fitted with it.
>You sound old
>enough to appreciate that point. Sure, many idiots cross, from the curb, both
>in front and behind you, but you don't need a signal from a computer to
>indicate this fact, unless you have entered senility ;-) What do you really
>want - a computer driven car?
Can you explain why you think less information is superior?
Why are you against our skills being supplemented by electronic
information?
Are you against radar and asdic on ships?
>>Nobody has commented on the most important component:-
>>the little pop up hook to hang your jacket on.
>
>Sounds like a salesman to me.
wrong again! What if I was?
The Reid
>Nice one. If I'd had a coffee, it would have been all over the keyboard
>after that!
or even a Red Bull.
sw
> Following up to sw
>
> >I think that's my point. If I'm paying attention and driving
> >appropriately, chances are I will never need ABS -- touch wood I never
> >have to date, which is just as well because none of my cars have it. I
> >know to pump the brakes to prevent skids when braking, 'cos I was taught
> >to. I can't pump as fast as the ABS
>
> Yes, but ABS does more than that, it brakes the 4 wheels
> *independently* to the limit of their adhesion, which the driver
> cannot do, even if Jenson Button, you would need a GM version, crossed
> with an arachnid! :-)
>
> I have hardly ever known it operate, as like you, I prefer to
> anticipate the need for slowing, but you never know when something
> genuinely unexpected might happen, so I prefer to have the best brakes
> possible.
Ah, well. If the car I could afford had them, I'd have to have them...
but my current car should see me out (or at least past my husband's
theoretical retirement, after which point we shouldn't need two cars).
Don and Wendy
The Reid wrote:
>>I agree driver skill is more important than any features of the car,
>>but I disagree that these things lull you into a false sense of
>>security or are gimmicks.
>>
>If travelling at a steady 50 mph without having to resort to 'touching your
>brake occasionally' or 'changing gear', are the optimum necessities for you,
>perhaps you ought to consider a chaffeur as a prime requisite ;-) Most
>drivers accept roadworks as 'par for the course'.
>
>>they are "par for the course". I dont have a problem with that.
>>Chauffeur? No way! I use the cruise in roadworks (which currently
>>cover much of the M6) consisting of cones and not much else, cruise
>>isnt an "optimum necessity" just useful.
>>
Sure, it's a moot point and could ease the leg pressure for the more elderly.
But by the same point, it might take their mind off the driving and onto the
scenery - not that you see much on the M6 :-)
>>>GPS actually means, avoidance of 'pre-planning the route' a lazy motorists
>>>option -What's wrong with a map and a brain?
>>
>>Perhaps you can memorise complex routes through unkown cities. I
>>cannot. Having a prompt would be a benefit, at least I assume it
>>would, noy having the system.
>>
Safer if you find somewhere to stop and find your bearings. Yes, I know that
can be difficult, but I do it. Having ridden a motorbike around Leeds and
other cities, for the 1st 20yrs, I got used to memorising routes. (Getting
lost as well!). A new city is always a challenge, therefore pre-planning of
the route, IMHO, is even more necessary. Today I'll often stop and ask
directions. Even with a navigational aid, I wouldn't trust myself to drive
and attempt to read a screen at the same time.
>
>Reversing is a skill to be practised, not delegated to a computer. If you
>are not observing all around your vehicle, before committing yourself to the
>manouvre, then you shouldn't be driving in the first place!
>
That sounds a bit stroppy. The beer must have gone down the wrong hole.
Pardon me ;-)
Don and Wendy
The Reid wrote:
Don and Wendy wrote:
The Reid wrote:
>>
>>Do you always get out of the vehicle and check for anything immediatly
>>behind the car before reversing? No. Even if you did something could
>>arrive while you got back in the car.
>>
You cannot rid the world of all uncertainties. Yes, there will always be
accidents caused by reversing. No, I rarely get out of my car when reversing
but I do scan the immediate locality around the parking space as I am come up
to it, as I stop and as I reverse (especially for children). Your brain is
still the best computer you have got! And yes, Sod's Law indicates that every
time you begin a manouvre, Someone will either walk in front of, or behind
the car, so slowly does it. Why do they always chose your vehicle. I still
don't recall ever hitting any person whilst reversing, Honest Guv ;-)
>
>> You stop on a narrow lane meeting an oncoming car. You need to reverse. I
>> have never seen anybody get out and check the blind spot behind and below
>> the rear window of the car. Reversing is not being delegated to a
>> computer, you just get some extra info.I was sceptical before I had it,
>> but believe me its a good thing, IMOall lorries/vans should be fitted
>> with it.
>>
[snip unwarranted personal abuse by me. That beer really must have been owff]
I can see your point, especially regarding lorries, vans and cars with
tobacco-stained windows, where vision is severely restricted, but I am not
persuaded that it would improve reversing skills of the average car driver,
or reduce reversing accidents. More dependence upon auxilliary aids might
>also have the reverse effect, especially when the system fails.
>>
>>Can you explain why you think less information is superior?
>>Why are you against our skills being supplemented by electronic
>>information?
>>Are you against radar and asdic on ships?
>>
I am a scientist and mathematician so I would have to negate that viewpoint.
However, as such, I always believe in testing the validity of any theory,
argument or practical device, before putting it before the public. I don't
know that this has been done, (come back to me with any relevant tests) so I
am a little concerned at corporations who titilate our tastebuds to increase
venue for themselves.
>>>
>>>Nobody has commented on the most important component:-
>>>the little pop up hook to hang your jacket on.
>>>
>Sounds like a salesman to me.
>>
>>wrong again! What if I was?
>>
The point was thrown out flippantly, albeit without the appropriate smiley.
Didn't you preceive the irony ;-)
~~~~~~~~
Oops, Sp(not deliberate)
The Reid
>I can see your point, especially regarding lorries, vans and cars with
>tobacco-stained windows, where vision is severely restricted, but I am not
>persuaded that it would improve reversing skills of the average car driver,
>or reduce reversing accidents. More dependence upon auxilliary aids might
>>also have the reverse effect, especially when the system fails.
I agree it will not improve reversing skills, I think it will reduce
reversing accidents with pedestrians.
I can quite see the problem re failure, as this wouldnt "fail-safe".
But I think things are reliable enough now for this not to be a issue.
>I am a scientist and mathematician so I would have to negate that viewpoint.
>However, as such, I always believe in testing the validity of any theory,
>argument or practical device, before putting it before the public. I don't
>know that this has been done, (come back to me with any relevant tests) so I
>am a little concerned at corporations who titilate our tastebuds to increase
>venue for themselves.
No idea about what testing has been done, I can only talk of my
experience where (in particular) reversing out of end on parking bay
at busy station carpark the bleeps as cars rush past behind to drop
off and from people running for trains going behind the car, I find
that while trying to look to sides, front and back all at the same
time, its very handy. (it would also be handy if everybody either
parked end on as marked out or all pulled up side on, already had one
person reverse into the side of me, if only *he* had had reversing
warning alarm! But I digress)
Its also nice to know you are exacly 6" from the car behind. does that
make me a parking pedant? :-)
>>>>Nobody has commented on the most important component:-
>>>>the little pop up hook to hang your jacket on.
>>Sounds like a salesman to me.
>>>wrong again! What if I was?
>The point was thrown out flippantly, albeit without the appropriate smiley.
>Didn't you preceive the irony ;-)
~~~~~~~~
Ahh, I think I do now. It went "whoosh"[1] the first time :-)
1] the usenet term for "over the head" IIUC[2]?
2] If I understand correctly.
Why are all the other posts aboyt food? This is uk.rec.driving, isnt
it?
Robert Goodrick
The Reid wrote:
> Why are all the other posts aboyt food? This is uk.rec.driving, isnt
> it?
It has been with great amusement that I have read this thread, with all the right
and left turns and evan some backing up just to see other point of views. There
are probably some people who think that this has been OT, or maybe OT but myself
have found it very interesting and to be OT and not OT [ confused? I am ].
The thing about "all" these wonderful gadgets [ and yes that's what they are ]
can be applied to food [which is what I was thinking while reading this tread ],
the more we tinker with things [ food wise ] the more we are going to kill
ourselves off faster. Agreed there are things that are found/created to help the
food industry but IMO most are like the gadgets on/in a car, nice to have but not
necessary.
Why fix something if it is not broken. Just my two pennyworth for what it's worth
which is usually nowt. :o)
R
The Reid
>nice to have but not necessary.
yes, I would say not "essential" but useful.
I just went back through the thread to see how on earth it got to
reversing alarms. It seems people are more interested in modern car
features than the food avenues that presented themselves, like Loch
Fynne and motorway food, or was that another thread. Even Red Bull
died out pretty quick.
I'm planning topical tips no 4
"If your hungry have something to eat" too controversial?
Robert Goodrick
The Reid wrote:
> Following up to Robert Goodrick
>
> >nice to have but not necessary.
>
> yes, I would say not "essential" but useful.
> I just went back through the thread to see how on earth it got to
> reversing alarms. It seems people are more interested in modern car
> features than the food avenues that presented themselves, like Loch
> Fynne and motorway food, or was that another thread. Even Red Bull
> died out pretty quick.
I think you forgot the "Sex" part in each of them there treads, I might have
kept ..... well you know what I mean. :o))
>
>
> I'm planning topical tips no 4
> "If your hungry have something to eat" too controversial?
Nar, go fur it guv.
I get hungry quit often, but do not seem to have the time to eat. six foot,
slim build, weighing in at twelve and half stone, thirty inch waste, .... I
think I need to go on a diet. :o))
R